Star and flag Slayer.
As children, my brothers and I spent many a day arrow head hunting in the fields around our house.
We accumulated a good number of cigar boxes full of them.
Some of the axes we found were very old according to the books my Grandfather had.
Not sure what became of them. I am sure one of my brothers still have them somewhere.

Anyway a simple question.........
In your opinion, why would anyone try to cover up that humans may have been in North America 35k to 500k years ago?
Quad

Excellent info. Seems like I have seen that vid but I'm going to watch/listen while I fall asleep this evening. Unless I'm remembering the wrong
lady McIntyre had her career adversely effected by this find. Never made much sense to me she seemed to just get a bad rap because it didn't fit
what was currently held as fact.

Now, I am not proposing a heresy in that there was actually migration from the Americas to Europe or Asia, and that the people here in the Americas
actually arrived long, long before the last ice age. But it is interesting to consider.

There is evidence, strong evidence, for a cataclysmic event in the far northern Americas. There is also strong evidence of a massive flood occuring
around the same time, proposed in the glacial dam theory. I have always wondered what the force of impact does to the plates. Wouldn't you expect
that the force would create a downward push, just like if you were to see a frog jump on a lillypad? Obviously, far less pronounced than that...but
it gives the idea.

We have found vast amounts of subterranean water, and have heard rumors that the entire west coast is basically a floating island attached tot he
continent. Would it then be possible that the glacial water flood could possibly have been exacerbated by this?

Combine back in the aforementioned downard pressure. If it occurs near the edge of a continental mass, could it create a teetering effect? As an
example, could a large meteor/comet creating impact pressure on the east coast affect the elevation of the coastline? Could you have an effect of
saltwater inclusion?

What I have a hard time doing is finding solid relational aspect between European/Asian cultures and American. However, the aforementioned link,
despite being somewhat silly in the way it is written, is an interesting observation.

This may prove to be a people/peoples that predate the accepted present bloodlines of the known 'Native/First nation' peoples. Whose to say that these
were left by homo sapiens?

I know huh?

spooky, isn't it

That's a great point. I had the same thought while watching the video. A couple things to point out-
We know that H. Erectus was in Europe(Georgian Caucasus)1.8 MYA.
we know that they spread across northern Africa and Asia all the way to Java and Indonesia.
We know that both Neanderthal and H. Erectus we capable of traveling over water though to what distance is unknown. Neanderthal was able to populate
Malta and Erectus was able to get to Indonesia.
We know that Neanderthal and Denisovans were well adapted to the cold and that both were in Siberia at some point.
We know that Beringia has historically been dry land more than it HS not and in fact geologically its current underwater condition is almost the
exception to the rule and has been the case for well over 2 million years.
we know that there have been multiple migrations of multiple species of animals both into and out of N America for the past 70 million years.
We know that HG groups follow migrating herds and if herds are migrating back and forth between North America and Asia then it's very much in the
realm of possibility that humans followed these animals or possibly even settled on Beringia to hunt them as they moved back and forth between
continents. When you factor all of these different facets in, it would be naive to rule out the possibility that one or more early humans migrated
into N. America from NE Asia and possibly more than once. I'm even feeling brazen enough to say that at first glance some of the more primitive tools
located in 'Layer I' are not dissimilar to some of the H Erectus chopping and scraping tools I've seen. I realize that's a rather over confident
statement and possibly foolish without being able to do a proper comparison but hey, why not throw it out there while im this deep down the
speculation well. As they said in the video, its hard enough to get someone to dig down 10 feet to find artifacts that are 10,000 yrs old so how easy
is it to get someone willing dig down 100,200 or 400 ft when 99% of archaeologists and geologists won't even entertain the notion of something that
old in the Western Hemisphere.

Your point about humans following migrating herds of different animals is very valid as we know the North American Indians had
an interconnected relationship with the buffalo, for me your point is simple and makes complete sense.

I do feel that one of the hidden hands at play here is the especially the Catholic Church and all the desert religious 'houses' and not in a minor
way. The further one pushes back the Garden of Eden and Creation, the more shaky the biblical origins of man become and the Church had the ability to
get in and at anyone because all the top brass, wherever it is was established, were anxious to be a part of its networking and under its blessings
and protective wealth. Its only recently that people have started to question dogma across the board and openly say their are athiest or not CoE on a
job application etc.

I believe the crux of this, apart from the dating, is the question one can ask oneself - with my brain would I have stagnated for X thousands of years
- and the answer virtually everyone would come up with is No. The environment changed periodically and I would have migrated not only out of necessity
but also out of the most human of reasons, my curiosity.

Quadrivium
Anyway a simple question.........
In your opinion, why would anyone try to cover up that humans may have been in North America 35k to 500k years ago?
Quad

If you want to create enemies try to change something.
If this is true it will rewrite human history. There would be no way around that.

I think we both agree that human history should be rewritten. That being said I do not see the problem with it being rewritten. Why would someone try
and suppress this information?
They set the timeline for early humans back 500k in Africa, why cover it up in the Americas?
The only reason that honestly comes to mind is evolution. Yet these discoveries don't seem to threaten it.
Quad

Thanks for a most informative thread which I have found very interesting. To have such a gem, when one is full of cold at 4.30 am is highly
recommendable.

I am intrigued by the antics of some people to stop this information getting out to mainstream and for people to investigate it further and discuss
it. I don't quite see the original guy who hired gun men to force the field workers to say the spear heads etc were placed at the site and discredit
the first lady Archaelogist as having that insiduous power. The effort this has taken seems to come from a much more devious and powerful
group/s.

I wonder if we are not looking at a twofold situation:

Firstly the development of our ancestors to circumnavigate the globe. I cannot help remembering something I read about the elder and ancient
Polynesians (or at least peoples from the Southern Hemisphere) and their ability to sail wherever they chose over vast distances, simply because they
had the skill to know from the lapping of the waves against the canoes's hull whether there was an island or land existing beyond the horizon and
other inexplicable nautical abilities which modern man has lost.

Secondly, the thorny one of blood lines. For me this suggests that there is a strong possibility of the reality that there exists an ancient elite
group who rule and control the beliefs of the world and have always literally used mankind as their workers and they are not going to allow any
change to our view of our origins or the various institutions and beliefs that keep them in power.

We rarely consider Kingship although some think that it was originally an elected position geared to run the land, rivers and seas etc for the benefit
of all and was not hereditary and not done for financial reward. If the crops failed etc then the king was either changed or possibly sacrificed.
Later it appears this situation was grabbed by the greediest and most powerful families who installed themselves as hereditary Kings etc and the
bloodlines came into being.

If one goes back to the biblical and Sumerian ideas of the Annanaki/Nephilim and we hyperthetically accept them as 'Gods' or God's workers and
that they were giants, we know that ordinary man eventually overcame the giants etc so it seems most likely that the bloodline theory links not to
this group of God-like individuals but to a group from within makind itself. Just food for thought as its a man's hand that removed the artefacts
and proof at the Mexican sight.

Goes basically back to two things, firstly the idea that the world is only some 6000 odd years old and that the first 'man' was made by a God within
the Garden of Eden ( which also can only be some 6000 years old).

Also if one came from the Garden of Eden perhaps one could accept that the oldest examples of man needs to be either in the Levant or nearby at a
stretch in Africa, but certainly no Garden of Eden in Mexico. The desert religions don't sit well with mankind breaking out all over the globe, and
certainly not any possibility of his origens coming from across the world, it leads to too many questions. Many of the religious fraternity are
accepting of religions assertions but given too many facts that question those assertions and there would be trouble within the ranks and a drop in
takings. The Roman Emporers ruled through the velvet glove of religion and nothing much has changed since their times.

When looking from a religious perspective anything that rocks the first few books of Genesis and its stories, which are the basic building block of
religious teaching for young children, hence their indoctrination into religions etc is subversive. The power of the religious houses is unbelievable
even today. In the UK we have Bishops sitting in our `house of Lords' which is an intricate part of our Government and how our society runs.

In the UK there was a tradition of the top families to make the eldest son run the estate, the second went into the army and the third went into the
Church and the fourth into politics - and so rulership thrived and much remained unchanged.

Of course u know that Young Earthers just came into being the last century or so? No where in the bible does it say how old the earth actually is.
If it were the case that man was in Mexico 500k years ago it would not shake my faith in the least.
On the other hand it may set the evolution of man back farther than many care to admit. The farther you push back man's evolution into modern man
the less amount of time there is for it to have been a slow and gradual process.
Think about it....... most scientists/archeologist gladly accepted proof that man was in Africa 500k years ago......why shun the same evidence from
the Mexico? Bcause it messes with their evolutionary model.

Of course u know that Young Earthers just came into being the last century or so? No where in the bible does it say how old the earth actually is.
If it were the case that man was in Mexico 500k years ago it would not shake my faith in the least.
On the other hand it may set the evolution of man back farther than many care to admit. The farther you push back man's evolution into modern man
the less amount of time there is for it to have been a slow and gradual process.
Think about it....... most scientists/archeologist gladly accepted proof that man was in Africa 500k years ago......why shun the same evidence from
the Mexico? Bcause it messes with their evolutionary model.

I had not meant for us to be debating your faith, which is nothing to do with me or this thread - or my faith either. As I understood it Young
Earthers - old Earthers are people who believe in the bible literally and consist of both Christians and Jews etc. Both these groups, especially the
latter who do have tremendous sway within funding and certain institutions etc - are not averse to letting their religious views influence their
actions I suspect.

With our evolution although I did use to accept the view that it took hundreds of thousands of years for us to move from round stones to shaped flint
tools etc etc. I have changed my mind about how quickly man can adapt and learn simply by looking at the incredible changes that have taken place
over the last 300 odd years. Since the industrial revolution in the West, we have gone from basically an illiterate society with no basic
sanitation, food supply or education to a society so technically advanced its quite an amaxing feat what we have achieved within 300 years.

What did bother me most was how determined in the video the scientist was not to change his opinion, despite the evidence - and as another scientist
commented, that is not science. We tend to trust scientists good judgement especially within archaeology and I would like to get the the truth, warts
and all rather than mouthing acceptance of outdated ideas. When one hears historian professors from Oxford saying we need to rewrite history, but its
unlikely to happen, its hardly inspiring and just leaves those who benefit from the current status quo being maintained sitting there smugly.

This particular site is one I've gone back and forth on since the early 90's when I first read about it. Or maybe it was the documentary that NBC
aired with Charlton Heston narrating. The name escapes me but it was one of the first times I had been exposed to alternative concepts in science.

Probably "The Mysterious Origins of Man," (link) referred to as MOM on Talk Origins
(link), which thoroughly debunks practically everything Heston was paid to read on that
crockumentary.

six67seven
I was just asking as I've seen a few old interviews he did and was looking into getting his Hidden History of the Human Race for some time. Maybe I
haven't pulled the trigger on that for good reason.

Personally, I'd say go for it and pick up one of his books.

Buy it used to keep the money out of Cremo's pockets and the pockets of the Hare Krishna, who published it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.